Well I'm reassured
"Uber has reportedly confirmed that Dalton was one of their drivers and had passed a background check."
An Uber driver suspected of killing six people and wounding two others in Kalamazoo, Michigan, on Saturday night was picking up fares between the shootings. "We are horrified and heartbroken at the senseless violence in Kalamazoo," said Joe Sullivan, chief security officer at Uber, in a statement. "Our hearts and prayers are …
Most people that haven't done anything illegal tend to pass background checks. It's one of those troublesome things that until someone does something illegal it doesn't show up in their background.
Though that saying just because someone had once committed crimes doesn't mean they'll do so again .
We could almost say - previous behaviour does not necessarily dictate future behaviour.
"Guns don't kill people, people not killing people in the past so we know they'll kill people in the future kill people."
On the other hand - does this mean using uber protects you from spree killers?
"I'm not really sure then what the difference is between catching an Uber and catching any other unlicensed minicab?"
That you know the registration, driver name and picture before hand and that you can have these details sent on to a third party of your choosing. Making it safer then pretty much any other kind of private hire.
Even that's no guarantee. Here in the US, you can get your record expunged just depending. And anything you did as a kid is absolutely off the record unless you die while doing it (even then it's 50/50 whether they'll print the name).
But at least it's a smidge better than Europe. In Europe you have the right to be forgotten no matter what the crime.
He would have passed multiple background checks. Prior to this... he had a clean record. (Or so the current reports in the news say...)
So you can't blame Uber on this. He could easily have been a cab/taxi driver and submitted to a full background check (criminal, credit, supplied finger prints, etc ...) and would have been squeaky clean.
This reminds me of an incident that happened after Dunblane where a cabbie got a hold of a shot gun and went on a driving shooting spree around town...
I live in the US. Are background checks non-existent, that bad, or just useless? All of the above. If you inherit the guns, no background check. If you buy the gun at a gun show or from a private buyer, no background check. The background check does not cover if you have had a restraining order, or are an alcoholic, or on medication that may affect your mental state. And, for the purposes of background checks, the relatively harmless doofus who got caught with a lot of pot (the felony charge being "with intent to distribute") is treated as the same kind of felon as the guy who put somebody through a window in a rage. Can I come retire in the UK?
You know I quite like the Americans I know, and the ones I meet for the most part are OK as well. But every now and again something comes up like how easy it is to buy guns without any checks, and I realise that it's such a different culture and no offence but some of it is bat shit crazy.
AC is a progtard who has probably never been to a gun show in his life. He's just spreading the propaganda about a Gun Show Loophole. There is no Gun Show Loophole. If you are registered firearms dealer, regardless of where you are you have to run a background check on any gun you sell.
Yes, private sales are excluded and that includes inheriting them. So tell me, how often is a dead uncle going to leave you a gun?
Also contrary to popular British opinion, we're not all walking around with a pistol and two AKs in case someone wants to buy one.
The truth is, background checks don't work for the same reason lie detector tests don't work: you're trying to predict the future based on past performance. There's a disclaimer about that on every form to buy stocks. And the companies traded on the stock market keep better records than the police because with the police the same progtards whining about gun violence are always siding with the thugs.
As someone British I have to say i don't assume everyone is going round tooled up, although you guys have the unfortunate problem everyone has which is the loudest idiots get all the media, in your case people doing armed carry in a small town with tricked out AR-15 for example, thats what people outside of America see more than responsible gun ownership.
I get your point about background checks also and you are right it is based on past performance.
But I have to say the part you say there about private sales needing no checks, no registration of transference and such still make me think thats a bit daft.
Registered firearms dealers forgive me but isn't it something like as a private seller you can actually sell a fair amount of guns on a rehular basis and still count as a private dealer? also do not gun shows have private dealers so negating again the need for checks and opening up the loophole again?
Also if you search Gun Show Loophole why are so many places talking about it and why did the motion to close it in 2009 not even get floored, if there is no such thing as a Gun Show Loophole?
I am confused, genuine questions though.
He could well have bought his weapons at a gun show or privately in which case there would be no background check at all.
Even if he did go through the background check - basically all it asks is whether he's a convicted felon, subject to *current* restraining orders, or mentally ill (and of course the mentally ill will answer this truthfully).
I think people in other countries underestimate just how easy it is for anyone in the US to get one or more guns of almost any description.
Cue all the commentards dissing Uber because one of their drivers went doolally.
Just for balance, here's an article about a taxi driver who committed murder:
http://www.thestar.com/news/crime/2015/10/30/cab-driver-convicted-of-manslaughter-in-long-boarders-death.html
It turns out that murderers come from all backgrounds and all walks of life.
Who knew?
Not all serial killers are terrorists, not all terrorists are serial killers, even though there is a large overlap between the two sets of killers.
The reason why he's not a terrorist is that there isn't any ideological profile to the killings or that the individual professed an ideological viewpoint for his actions.
No, a serial killer is nothing like a terrorist. A serial killer does what he (usually) does for personal reasons, often psychosexual in nature. A terrorist operates for reasons deemed religious or political in nature, and killing is a means to a public reaction, not an end in itself. A terrorist is usually a mass murderer, taking out maximum casualties in one attack, a serial killer tends to take victims one at a time, if a second person not his target is encountered, he usually kills that person just to remove a witness, so he can "enjoy" his main victim according to his "script". This guy appears to be a spree killer, more in line with the serial killer than the terrorist, since it seems he has no political agenda, nor were the killings primarily for the primary purpose of attracting attention.
There is a difference between Uber and standard taxi operations, and this is where Uber can be blamed.
You see, Uber operations are purely virtual. The driver applies online, clears a background check electronically and then gets dispatched electronically within their own vehicles. The driver is considered, and supposedly operates as, an indepedent contractor.
In other words, an Uber driver can pretty much avoid interpersonal contact with anyone from Uber itself, allowing any person with somewhat questionable motives to operate under the system.
A taxi, on the other hand, is almost always operated and owned by a taxi company. The taxi operates by "slip seating" the drivers; slip seating is the transportation industry term for replacing one driver for other to continue operating the vehicle beyond a single person's hourly ability. In order to do this slip seating, drivers come to and fro from the taxi depot to pick up or return the taxis, then complete any paperwork and/or check in's.
In other words, taxi drivers almost constantly come into interpersonal contact with other human beings who can hopefully judge that individual's state of mind. Walking into a taxi depot with a cache of loaded weapons will almost certainly raise eyebrows; with an Uber driver who is ever going to notice, the family dog hanging out by the front door?
And THAT'S the difference.
By that logic any company which allows home office teleworking is criminally irresponsible because they cannot judge the person state of mind by putting him in contact with other human beings.
Err... I do not buy that. Uber is a sign of our times - office operations are largely virtualized. It is no different from any company which has minimized CO and has allowed teleworking.
I'm a licensed Taxi driver, aside passing my knowledge test, I haven't come into contact with anyone from the TFL or other organisations ....I own my own Black Taxi get in it, drive, return home.
As did every other murdering rapist kidnapping Black Taxi driver in history (and there are a few!)
They probably thought of it only after they got in a vehicle that matched the description of what the shooter was driving. Better safe than sorry!
Maybe it's just me. But if I were in the vehicle that matched the description, I don't think I'd make a joke to the driver. What if he's that deranged and answers "yes'?
Humor is a well documented technique for dealing with fear. This wasn't a serious accusation, it was exactly the sort of humor people use to deal with fear. If you all laugh together at the joke you've built a very temporary community bond. The "we're all in this together" boost helps deal with the fear.
Of course, when it turns out you made a joke to the actual killer...
Ah! I'm so pleased they have 'reached out' to the police. Are they going to give them a hug?
Reached out is such a dumb irrelevant phrase in this context, 'offered any assistance we can to the police' or similar would make more sense, reaching out to the families of the victims in some way would indicate this moron knows what is going on.
A mouthpiece that can actually speak articulately might be better.
'reached out'
I also despise that phrase. It seems to be one of the current popular ones in "organization speak". Companies, HR departments and concerned groups seem to be doing quite a lot of "reaching out" lately. I hope they don't strain anything.
The phrase seems to be meant to evoke personal concern, when, in fact, there is none.
// no 'fingers holding nose' icon available